“Dude, you HAVE no Quran!”

This morning I blogged on the overwhelming Christian repudiation of Quran burning involving everyone from the Vatican and the USCCB to the Patriarch of Jerusalem to Evangelical luminaries like Franklin Graham, Rick Warren and Chuck Colson. “Outrageous and grave,” “contrary to the respect due to all religions,” “contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ,” “insensitive,” and “foolish and cowardly” were among the many words that world Christian leaders addressed to would-be Quran burners.

Jacob Isom, a 23-year-old skateboarding enthusiast from Amarillo, Texas, had something more succinct to say: “Dude, you have no Quran!”

The facts seem to be these. Isom, a skateboarding enthusiast, came upon a confrontation between would-be Quran burners and counter-demonstrators in Amarillo’s Sam Houston Park. The would-be Quran burners represented a group with the unsurprisingly fringe-sounding name of Repent Amarillo, led by a David Grisham. Grisham’s group was considerably outnumbered by counter-demonstrators made up of “Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists,” who reportedly numbered around 200. (Apparently some counter-demonstrators were Unitarian Universalists; hopefully there were actual Christians there as well.)

Grisham had come to the park armed with kerosene or lighter fluid, a lighter and a copy of the Quran. The Quran, soaked in lighter fluid, lay on a grill. Some counter-protesters had put their hands on the grill next to the Quran to discourage Grisham from lighting the fire.

As Isom approached, Grisham was apparently distracted by an argument with counter-demonstrators about his plans to burn the Quran. Acting on the spur of the moment, Isom reportedly said, “Dude, you have no Quran,” then snatched up the book and ran off with it. Isom then gave the Quran to an imam from the Islamic Center of Amarillo, apparently present among the counter-protesters.

While Isom’s intervention may have been more symbolic than actual (Grisham says he had already surrendered his lighter since he wasn’t going to light the grill while counter-protesters had their hands on it), his gesture quickly went viral, inspiring hats and T-shirts bearing a logo with a skateboarder holding a book.

Grisham says he finds it ironic that Isom is celebrated for breaking the law while he is excoriated for exercising his First Amendment rights. True, Grisham was within his legal rights, and Isom broke the law by stealing Grisham’s Quran. That just goes to show that legality isn’t everything.

Grisham’s free speech exercise was outrageous and objectionable, while Isom’s act of theft was also an affirmation of social decency, not unlike, say, throwing tomatoes at a local scoundrel. Or, to pick a much more serious example, a priest slapping a man for desecrating the Blessed Sacrament — an act that many NCRegister.com combox participants heartily applauded. (The particulars of the case in Spain are complicated by the fact that (a) it looks like the priest slapped the wrong young man, and (b) the young man’s sacrilege may have been more or less inadvertent. However, in principle I have no problem with a priest slapping someone for deliberately desecrating the Blessed Sacrament.)

Of course desecrating the Blessed Sacrament — the holiest object presented to our senses — is infinitely graver than burning a Quran, which is not in fact the divine revelation that Muslims believe it to be. Nevertheless, it is an outrageous and antisocial act—and such acts may have social consequences, occasionally even consequences that go beyond the letter of the law. (But not necessarily the moral law. Theft is defined morally as seizing another’s property contrary to the reasonable will of the owner. If an act such as Quran burning is antisocial and harmful to the social order, then preventing this act for the sake of the public good may not contrary to the owner’s reasonable will, and may thus be morally licit even if legally actionable, like the priest’s slap.)

Isom, reportedly “an atheist concerned with religious liberty,” said, “I believe in freedom for everyone and not to mess with everybody’s beliefs. I don’t believe in the Quran. I believe you shouldn’t burn it in front of people that do.”

Three cheers for the atheist defending Muslims—and for the Christians and other counter-demonstrators—and a raspberry for Repent Amarillo’s skewed version of evangelistic zeal.

Comments

I feel compelled to defend real Christianity when I read an author from a purportedly Christian, albeit Chatholic, news outlet defending violence and petty theft in any way shape or form. Violence and theft are not part of Christianity, period. This point may seem minor, but is a huge difference between Christianity and other faiths, and in fact is one of the defining characteristics that distinguishes Christianity even among other so-called monotheistic faiths or major world religions. In Christianity, there is no capital punishment, no murder, no war, no killing even in self-defense. Christ is clear about how to be pro-active to create peace, maintain peace, and protect peace. The greatest test of faith comes in your darkest hour and if you believe in salvation and an after life then you have no reason to kill. This is because of the love that Christ teaches us. Please examine the Quran for what it says about love, and you will sadly find nothing, a point that even shocks most Muslims, but plenty of commands regarding killing and the chopping of limbs of human beings. As for stealing others property, Mohammad did exactly that and there is even a chapter in the Quran called the Spoils of War. His cut as the prophet of Islam was 20%, of course he was to share it with those less fortunate, while his mercenaries took 80%. Do you still believe Islam is a religion? Christianity is based on principles, Islam is based on context and syntax, so you never know what you believe unless you know the context. This means that you do not believe anything on principle. Please do not pervert Christianity by succumbing to your emotions or sense of what is right and wrong and publishing those views in a Catholic publication. I accept that we are all capable of sin, but I do not accept that we all accept sin as Christian doctrine because a majority of us is guilty of it or think it so.

Posted by vivian Noronha on Monday, Oct 11, 2010 1:47 PM (EDT):

The Islamists all over the world have some divine right to kill,rape,murder non muslims,but are united and demand that they should be treated differently where they are involved.Gadaffi,the libyan has the guts to go to Rome and attack the christian faith and Christ.The plain fact is that there are muslim countries who are funding the virulant form of Islam and when they are beaten at their own game they cry for democratic rights?Which Muslim country in the world is democratic.

Muslims must recognise that non muslims are children of God and they too should be allowed to preach their faith in Muslim lands, as Muslims are allowed in the West and U.S.

Burning of any sacred book will not solve the real problem of Islam in the world and should not be undertaken in a democracy.It is better to educate Islamists to go back to their countries of birth and see for themselves how non muslims are treated and to stop this mad slide by members of their faith into violence.

“Anyone that says the Bible is less important than the Koran is obviously a Cradle Catholic (or one of the closer cousins like Lutheran or something) and has never met a fundamentalist evangelical Christian.”

Wrong on all counts! :-) I was indeed a very Evangelical Christian, some would have called me a Fundamentalist—and it was certainly a Fundamentalist missionary who told me that he wouldn’t be upset to see someone desecrate a Bible because to him the physical Bible is just ink and paper. They DON’T view the Bible the same way as Muslims do the Quran. They just don’t have the same sense of sacredness for any object on earth.

Posted by Laura on Tuesday, Sep 21, 2010 4:00 PM (EDT):

Dude, nice post.

Posted by Jeff on Monday, Sep 20, 2010 2:26 AM (EDT):

Anyone that says the Bible is less important than the Koran is obviously a Cradle Catholic (or one of the closer cousins like Lutheran or something) and has never met a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. Also, anyone saying that drawing cartoons of Muhammed is not as bad as burning the Koran apparently doesn’t read the newspaper and forgot to tell the Muslims. Some of the people who merely “drew” Muhammed have received death threats and have had to change their names, move, and hide for fear of being murdered. And let’s not forget old Salman Rushdie, or the death threats against the Southpark creators.

Ultimately the Koran points to Muhammed who as you said is no messenger of God, but the Bible points to Christ who is God and yet you say burning the Bible is not as bad. Bibles are burnt every day throughout the world and no one says a word, but let a handful of nut jobs even suggest burning the Koran and it’s the “shot heard ‘round the world”.

The Blessed Sacrament is being regularly desecrated on YouTube - where is the outrage for that? Thousands have complained and YouTube has ignored them. Where is the media on this? In France last year, 200 Catholic Churches were attacked or destroyed compared to 13 Mosques and 22 Synagogues - where is that story? Where is that outrage?

I am sorry, but the Koran is a book - it might as well be a Deepak Chopra best seller. Instead of being so busy defending Islam, maybe we should be busy defending our own Faith - the True Faith, Catholicism. Seriously, Catholics are probably the most persecuted group around the world. All the Catholic Church should say about Koran burning is that “we will never do that” and then get back to Defending the Faith.

“This reminds me of a famous incident in April 1976 at Dodger Stadium when two protesters ran onto the field and tried to light an American flag on fire. Their plans were ruined when Cubs outfielder Rick Monday ran over and snatched the flag, earning a standing ovation from the crowd.”

Yes. Exactly. How could you not cheer? An act of theft, certainly (legally speaking, not necessarily morally). But the flag belongs in a moral sense to all Americans, and in a similar way the Quran belongs in a moral sense to all Muslims.

Of course the attempted flag burning had a special level of boorishness in that the protesters were trying to co-opt a baseball game rather than holding their flag burning in a park on their own time, as it were. (Also, of course, they were trespassing.) But then the Quran burners were trying to co-opt September 11 as “Burn a Koran Day,” which seems to me something substantially worse than boorishness.

Steve, I don’t know why you keep saying over and over, no matter how many times I say otherwise, that I think the priest acted out of love, that the sinner needed some sense knocked into him, etc. It’s like you’re not even reading what I write half the time—like how you started out saying that no one had the courage to respond to your post in the other combox. I think anyone who reads this combox knows what I’ve said; I don’t feel the need to clarify any further. The one thing I will clear up is that I do not think you are a fundamentalist. Cheers.

P.S. Yes, it is always better to speculate, mutatis mutandis, that people have good motives than that they have bad. See CCC 2477ff, Phil 2:3.

Posted by Steve on Thursday, Sep 16, 2010 9:16 AM (EDT):

Steven,

I said that I could not read the priest’s heart and mind and was speculating, just as YOU were speculating that the priest acted out of love for the sinner to save his soul. You can speculate, but I can’t regarding motive? I did qualify it by saying I didn’t know.

Second, the “human logic” I was mentioning was in the vein of Jesus’ use of that term; i.e., human, earthly concerns. You want to honor the Eucharist and the priest, so this “sinner” who desecrated the Eucharist needs “some sense slapped into Him”. Make sense from a human, earthly perspective, but God does not think as man does. He says love Him. The Lord say, “forgive Him for He knows not what he does.” Love is not expressed by a priest slapping someone during communion.

Ah the money changers again. These guys were cohorts w/ the Sadducces cheating the people who came to the Temple to purchase what was needed for the sacrifice. Often they were foreigners and the MC’s were cheating them on the exchange to profit the Temple. Indeed, the only examples of Jesus’ “righteous” anger in Scripture is toward those entrusted with teaching God’s commandments and safeguarding it. The Pharisees. The Scribes. The Sadducces. Peter. His Apostles. As for everyone else, tax collectors, prostitutes, Romans, the rest of the folk, he acted with love, compassion and kindness. I see that as the differentiation.

God expects much from those who have been given much. And even then, Jesus spends much time teaching and witnessing to them before he pulls out the “Woes” or the “Whips”. And in the end He still let them falsely accuse Him, beat Him and kill Him for their salvation.

So one more time… the sheer weight of Jesus’ teaching is clearly in the LOVE and FOREGIVENESS category. Love those who hate us. Accept persecution from enemies. Forgive 70x7.

Maybe you think I’m a fundamentalist. I happen to think that applying reason, Tradition and Scripture properly requires more than just knowing and using those words.

peace, s

Posted by Richard Ferrara on Thursday, Sep 16, 2010 1:31 AM (EDT):

This reminds me of a famous incident in April 1976 at Dodger Stadium when two protesters ran onto the field and tried to light an American flag on fire. Their plans were ruined when Cubs outfielder Rick Monday ran over and snatched the flag, earning a standing ovation from the crowd.

Since we don’t materially disagree about the incident in Madrid, I don’t think there’s any more to be said about that. I would caution against speculating about particular sins such as losing control / wrath; it may be possible and even plausible that he did so, but we don’t know his state of mind, and the eighth commandment constrains us. At any rate, it seems he acted foolishly and wrongly, and I’m content to leave it at that.

Your phrase about “having to resort to human reason to explain away” something doesn’t correspond to anything I recognize myself to have done in this discussion. “Resorting to human reason” isn’t language I would use anyway. Human reason is our share in the divine Logos. I’ve appealed to scripture, tradition and the shape of Christian culture in this discussion. I’ve engaged them by means of reason, as Aquinas did in writing the Summa Theologiae. I don’t know that anyone has ever described him as “resorting” to reason. That sounds to me like the way Fundamentalists talk who lack a fully Catholic anthropology and the respect for reason that goes with it.

How can you put the whip alongside the rack and ignore the fact that Jesus made and evidently used a whip? It seems to me that you want nonviolence to be self-evidently true from the Gospels, but wanting it to be true doesn’t make it true. At least, it’s not self-evidently true that nonviolence applies in any and all situations of the type we’ve been considering.

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 6:43 PM (EDT):

Steven,

Again, you make excellent points; i.e, that all of Scripture must be considered and that context/circumstances are crucial. In responding to all of these queries, I am continuing to focus on THIS situation not all hypotheticals you might conjure. Hence, this is where we disagree. In THIS particular situation I don’t believe this is a proper response. Admittedly, however, I am also hard pressed to ever excuse a representative of the Church for resorting to physical punishment for a sinful act. The overwhelming emphasis of Jesus’ teaching toward sinners and those who hate us is all his teaching on love, as I have already shared above. I believe you agree with this, which is why you’ve had to resort to human reason to try to explain it away in this case.

I can’t read minds or hearts, but I honestly don’t believe that this priest acted out of “loving correction” to this man. I believe he lost control (a sin of wrath) prompted by an offensive act and then became physically aggressive. Again, just my humble opinion. The fact that you wrote the article expresses the reality that such an act needed explained since the assumption is clearly it does not jive w/ Jesus’ teaching and own actions. Slap, hit, pinch, punch, whips, cords, the rack, etc. .. when and how do we properly apply all of these for love of God and neighbor and the salvation of souls? I think we all know the answer w/out beating round the bush (pun intended).

peace, s

Posted by Pete on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 6:33 PM (EDT):

—“Hey, it’s the anniversary of 9/11, plus everyone’s all stirred up about the Park 51 project. Let’s stir things up some more!”

Jesus stirred things up. It’s ok to be stirred up about the right things.

Posted by Lon Mendelsohn on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 5:40 PM (EDT):

Yes, I agree that the immediacy of the burning of the scrolls in Acts 19 is quite a bit different from an ex-Muslim burning the Qur’an some time after his or her conversion. As you point out, the whole thing has much more of a gratuitous feeling than I would like—“Hey, it’s the anniversary of 9/11, plus everyone’s all stirred up about the Park 51 project. Let’s stir things up some more!”

Thanks, Lon. While the Acts 19 situation isn’t necessarily equivalent to an ex-Muslim burning his Quran, since there’s no evidence in Acts that their act was considered sacrilegious or blasphemous by anyone, I would not quarrel with an ex-Muslim coming to Christ expressing his repudiation of his former religion by burning his Quran.

I would look somewhat differently on a longtime church member who was a Muslim, say, ten years ago, and whose “clean break” with Islam is well in the past, belatedly participating in (a) a church-based public Quran burning (b) held on September 11 (a date identified with Islamist terrorism specifically) (c) in response to calls from a non-Muslim-convert pastor (d) for that date to be observed as “International Burn a Quran Day.”

As it is, I’m aware of no evidence that any ex-Muslims were participating with Gresham. I’m still left with (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Posted by Lon Mendelsohn on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 4:27 PM (EDT):

Is it possible that some of the folks who had gathered to burn the Qur’an were ex-Muslims, thus making their act of burning an act of repudiation of a false religion in which they formerly believed? I can’t tell whether David Grisham is an ex-Muslim himself, but if some present were, then it puts a slightly different complexion on the matter. While such behavior may be repugnant to our 21st century sensibilities, there is a biblical precedent for it in Acts 19:17-20. I have little patience with those who would burn the Qur’an or perform other such desecrations simply because they (the desecrators) reject a religion as false. However, I am accepting of the need of the former Muslim (or Hindu, or Wiccan, or what have you) to perform such acts to indicate that s/he has made a clean break with a false religion.

@Steve, if “Turn the other cheek” excludes absolutely any corporal response whatever to any provocation whatever, does “Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you” also exclude absolutely any refusal whatever to any begging or borrowing? Are we beholden always to give to everyone who begs or borrows? If so, does St. Paul contradict this when he says “If a man will not work, he ought not to eat”? How can St. Paul enjoin that even the most shiftless man should go hungry if Christians are obliged to give him food whenever he asks for it?

I don’t think we disagree on the particular case in Madrid. The priest was wrong, and has created problems rather than working to solve them. Very likely even if he had slapped the right young man, it would have been wrong. It seems that the desecration in question was done more in ignorance than in malice. That is not the sort of situation in which I imagine the possibility of a salutary slap.

I absolutely disagree that the rationale here is in any way related to medieval torture or execution of heretics. Torture seeks to coerce the will; execution seeks to punish the guilty. A slap is a social rebuke, even a form of ritual humiliation in the face of blatant defiance of norms of decency. A man who speaks in a sufficiently humiliating way to or about a lady, whether in her presence or in the presence of her brother, son or husband, may well get a slap, and serve him right.

Christian meekness does not automatically exclude any degree whatsoever of chivalry. It does not automatically exclude Henry Jones Sr. slapping Indiana for blasphemy, or Mr. Walsh slugging George Bailey at Martini’s for savaging Walsh’s wife on the phone. There is no necessary contradiction with the Sermon on the Mount, any more than Jesus making a whip and driving out the money-changers contradicts the Sermon on the Mount.

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 3:23 PM (EDT):

Steven

I truly appreciate your love for the Eucharist and our Lord. I appreciate your attempt to explain how it could be justified that a priest could slap someone who desecrates the Eucharist. And I have no concerns about St. Tarsicius or anyone defending the Eucharist even w/ their life. But we’re at an impasse here on everything else.

Based on your rationale, one has to seriously question the import of clear Gospel teaching from Jesus’ own lips and actions regarding love and response to hatred. To slap someone is not instructing nor is it sacrificial love. The same or similiar kind of rationale was used in medieval times to kill heretics (i.e, a proper, justified response in the hope of converting people to save their souls and the souls of others from being polluted by them). The Church has wisely rectified the use of such physical approaches to correction.

IMHO the priest should have responded differently. I hope he tried to meet w/ the young man to discuss his actions. He certainly could preach about the issue. write about it in the bulletin, letters to the people, etc. And what if the man did what might come naturally; i.e, hit the priest back! Nothing like a brawl in the isle during communion to teach new life in Christ!

Sorry to disagree; I’m grossly offended by the desecration as well… but I believe the priest had no right to pursue this course of physical correction. And I believe his approach could (and has) opened the door to more problems, division, confusion in the Body of Christ.

@Steve: Jesus did not merely overturn tables. He “drove out” those who bought and sold in the temple (Mark 11:15, Matt 21:12). What’s more, he “made a whip of cords” before doing so (John 2:15). How exactly does one man “drive out” a substantial number of businessmen plying their livelihood? Certainly he used force (and/or threatened with force, which comes to the same thing, certainly in terms of establishing the moral legitimacy of using force).

Jesus allowed his body to be desecrated in the Passion for our redemption, which is now accomplished. Desecrations of the Blessed Sacrament do not further our redemption (except insofar as our own grief at such desecrations is united to His suffering). Prior to the Passion, efforts to use violence against Jesus seem to have been ineffective (Luke 4:28-30, John 7:30,44).

It is true that in the Blessed Sacrament Jesus makes himself available for desecration. But he also makes priests especially, and to a lesser extent the faithful, guardians of the sacred mysteries. Should St. Tarsicius not have defended the Eucharist (passively perhaps, but still defended it), though it cost his life? Should he have said “Jesus allowed himself to be desecrated, so why shouldn’t I?”

We can’t really compare Jesus in his Eucharistic presence with his natural bodily presence in the Passion. Nor are communicating Catholics or others who present themselves for communion in the same position as those who put Jesus to death. The question is not “What did Jesus do?” but “What would Jesus have us do?”

The answer is that he would have us love and do what is best for souls. I cannot see that a complete reading of the whole of Christian moral thought and Church teaching will support the conclusion that force of any kind, or corporal reprimands such as a slap in the face, can never be what is best for souls. Is it possible, under the right circumstances, to slap someone in love, for their own good, to shame them, to impress upon them the indecency of what they have done? Yes.

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 12:09 PM (EDT):

Steven,

Mea culpa. You are correct. 3 people did endeavor (including you) to respond to my similiar post on the priest slapping. But none really addressed what Jesus said and did. The best response I got concerning the Gospels I was pointing to was only one other Gospel teaching; to wit - Jesus got angry and turned over the tables of the money changers. But I note that Jesus didn’t slap the money changers! Those whom Jesus got angry with in the Gospels were the religious leaders and their companions. Woe to the priest who slapped this man! The only direct example we have in the Gospels “on point” for this case is Jesus who directly taught and permitted Himself to be slapped by those who persecuted Him. Then He died out of love on the cross for their souls. I’m sorry folks, nice try, but still not answering direclty the Gospel imperatives. Indeed, these are hard teachings. Jesus would show this confused man love to save his soul. He would not slap him. If Jesus permitted His own body and blood to be desecrated like this, then?

@Steve: “No one had the courage to address what you posted”? Did you go back and check? At least THREE people addressed what you posted—starting with me, in the comment right after yours. And that’s only by scanning for mentions of your name; other people might have addressed what you wrote without referring to you by name.

As far as I can tell, you never responded to any of those who responded to you (at least, your name doesn’t appear again). Should we conclude that you “didn’t have the courage” to defend your position? Disagreeing is one thing; let’s avoid unnecessary and unwarranted moral judgments against those we disagree with.

You might be dissatisfied with the responses so far. That’s another thing. Very few disagreements are satisfactorally resolved after only one pass. There’s plenty of room for “I think you’re missing my point” or “Yes, but the issue is…” without leaping to “No one has the courage to deal with what I’m saying.”

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 10:42 AM (EDT):

Steven,

The post you referred me to regarding the “slapping priest” ... I HAVE read THOSE posts. In fact, I posted something similiar to what I did hear. And no one had the courage to address what I posted… because what I posted Christ Himself did and said. What I did not read are the posts above, which concern the Q burning. So my questions still stand to YOU. How in God’s name can you support a priest slapping someone for desecrating the Eucharist when Christ Himself would not do this, taught against it and died from desecration to Himself?

“I referred specifically to the Danish cartoons, which (as summarized by Wikipedia) were published explicitly ‘to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.’ They were made with an understanding that at least some of them would be offensive.”

But as I already said, (a) there’s a difference between doing something with an understanding that it may be offensive and doing something in order to offend, and (b) writing and drawing are so directly connected to self-expression that meaningful free speech cannot exist if we don’t have social as well as legal freedom to write and draw even in the face of some level of objection and offense, in contrast to book burning, which again is only a form of “expression” insofar as burning someone’s sacred books allows us to poke them in the eye.

“Well, maybe not at first. But once Muslims began to protest—including any and all instances of threatened or actual violence, which would be pretty much unreasonable by definition—the motivations of some Koran-burners, including those who had never thought to do it before, no doubt *became* an affirmation of freedom of expression.”

What Quran burners/desecraters? Not Grisham or Jones, as far as I can tell. Their fundamental beef with Islam is religious and political, not civil. Not PZ Myers, who also desecrated a Eucharistic host (it was actually his primary target) not to defend the First Amendment but to protest the idea that anything is sacred. People draw Muhammad to protest death threats, sure. Nobody burns a Quran solely or primarily to protest death threats. You don’t burn a Quran unless you fundamentally object to the reverence in which it is held in itself, not just the threats elicited by this reverence. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but certainly it wasn’t the spirit behind “International Buran a Koran Day.”

Note the day chosen for Quran burning, September 11. How could you say more clearly “If you reverence this book, if you object to my burning it, then you’re all of a piece with the terrorists who hit the WTC”?

“And would they have bothered to say anything at all if it weren’t for the fact that Muslims around the world might react in a violent fashion?”

Fair enough. Where were they when PZ Myers was threatening for weeks to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament? But their hypocrisy and pragmatic concern about violence (against American soldiers; we aren’t concerned about Christians in the Middle East) doesn’t invalidate their statements about American values which are also felt by a great many Americans.

“I would be interested to know if Muslims would react as strongly to the burning of, say, an English-language Penguin Classics edition of the Koran as they would to the burning of an Arabic Koran.”

Good question. In principle, the answer is it’s the Arabic text that’s sacred; translations aren’t nearly as big a deal. However, many people may not know that, and I have no idea what sort of Quran anyone on September 11 was threatening to burn.

“Grisham’s group was in the minority, *not* the majority, on this occasion. To ‘celebrate’ this is to celebrate the stifling of a minority view by the majority. Is that *really* in keeping with the ‘values’ that your country was built on?”

First you ask me what community is setting standards for decency, and then when I point out that community standards are obviously against Grisham, you say he’s in the minority and shouldn’t be stifled! What, we should only stand up for decency when the majority want indecency? By that point the battle is lost.

@Pete,

“What exactly does it mean that we’re supposed to ‘respect all religions’?”

I’ll try to explain in a future post.

@Steve,

“I am breaking the thread. I have not even read any of the above threads. I am writing to comment on your statement, ‘I have no problem with a priest deliberately slapping someone for desecrating the Eucharist.’ Really? Have you not read ‘turn the other cheek’?”

Please see the combox for the post in question. The issues are pretty well discussed there.

@LRoy,

“How the heck did he get his mitts on a Quaran anyway? Did he steal (borrow?) it from a mosque? As I understand it, only Muslims are allowed to handle the book, so SOME Muslim must’ve given it to him.”

I know nothing about this. I’m unaware of any restriction on non-Muslims handling the (presumably Arabic text of the) Quran, nor do I know that that’s what Grisham had on Saturday.

Posted by LRoy on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 9:32 AM (EDT):

How the heck did he get his mitts on a Quaran anyway? Did he steal (borrow?) it from a mosque? As I understand it, only Muslims are allowed to handle the book, so SOME Muslim must’ve given it to him.

Freedom of speech is allowed only as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s freedom of speech (or in this case religion).

Posted by Steve on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 9:31 AM (EDT):

Steven,

I am breaking the thread. I have not even read any of the above threads. I am writing to comment on your statement, “I have no problem with a priest deliberately slapping someone for desecrating the Eucharist.” Really? Have you not read “turn the other cheek”? “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.”? “Peter, put away your sword.” Jesus is pretty clear about how we are to treat those who hate, harm and persecute us. So clear that He suffered and died to provide the clearest of examples. Is that we Jesus did w/ those who tortured and killed Him? Then why are suggesting that you are someone else has the right to do this? Love them and show them that love always prevails. God is big enough to protect Himself in the Eucharist and doesn’t need your or anyone else’s help. A priest’s slap does nothing but beget more hatred.

Posted by Pete on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 1:43 AM (EDT):

What exactly does it mean that we’re supposed to “respect all religions”? Because the more I learn about Islam the less I respect it. And it makes my fingers itch to draw a pic of Muhammed and burn a Koran. And I’ve never burnt a book in my life. Odd.

Posted by Peter T Chattaway on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 1:17 AM (EDT):

Re: “Certainly the group of counter-protesters in Amarillo seems to have included a lot of people who felt it was wrong on the merits, not just because it might lead to violence.”

And they are more than welcome to counter-protest.

Re: “The very celebration of Isom’s act suggests that a lot of people consider Grisham’s act beyond the pale of decency.”

That’s still no reason to celebrate it. The stifling of someone’s right to do what he wants with his own property, not to mention his freedom of expression, is itself an affront to decency or the social order or whatever you want to call it. It may or may not have been a necessary evil, all things considered, but it is still an evil.

I mean, as you yourself note, Grisham’s group was in the minority, *not* the majority, on this occasion. To “celebrate” this is to celebrate the stifling of a minority view by the majority. Is that *really* in keeping with the “values” that your country was built on?

(I would have included this response in my previous comment, but it seems you added the sentences in question to your own comment after it was first posted.)

Posted by Peter T Chattaway on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 1:02 AM (EDT):

Re: “Publicly burning a Quran, by contrast, is something that no one would ever do unless it were offensive.”

Right—and freedom-of-expression laws exist precisely to protect expressions that are offensive. They do not exist to protect expressions that nobody minds.

Re: “Note that people (e.g., editorial cartoonists) have reasons to draw Muhammad that have nothing to do with offending Muslims.”

Right, but we’re not talking about people in general. I referred specifically to the Danish cartoons, which (as summarized by Wikipedia) were published explicitly “to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.” They were made with an understanding that at least some of them would be offensive.

Re: “However, not only is this once again a far lesser provocation, it’s also an act aimed precisely at affirming freedom of expression in drawing over against unreasonable Muslim protests and even violence over this very act. Those who burn Qurans are not likewise protesting Muslim opposition to burning Qurans.”

Well, maybe not at first. But once Muslims began to protest—including any and all instances of threatened or actual violence, which would be pretty much unreasonable by definition—the motivations of some Koran-burners, including those who had never thought to do it before, no doubt *became* an affirmation of freedom of expression.

Re: “Obama worked that angle . . . Hillary Clinton called it . . .”

And would they have bothered to say anything at all if it weren’t for the fact that Muslims around the world might react in a violent fashion?

Side note: I would be interested to know if Muslims would react as strongly to the burning of, say, an English-language Penguin Classics edition of the Koran as they would to the burning of an Arabic Koran. After all, according to their own beliefs, the angel dictated the Koran to Mohammed in Arabic; thus, I am told, at least some Muslims regard translations of the Koran as not *quite* the word of Allah. (Thankfully, it’s somewhat impossible to have a debate of this sort within Christianity, because with just a few brief exceptions, the words of Jesus exist for us *only* in translation; the gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.)

“And if we’re going to invoke “community standards”, then that just begs the question of which community is setting the standard. This is not an irrelevant question, given that the *primary* reason for opposing the Koran-burning in many people’s eyes seems to be the likely reaction of the Muslim world abroad, including the sort of violence that we saw after the Danish cartoons were printed.”

I dunno. General Petraeus focused on that aspect, but that’s his job. Obama worked that angle, but also called Quran burning “completely contrary to our values,” adding, “this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance.” Hillary Clinton called it a “disrespectful, disgraceful act” and likewise emphasized, “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. Many of you know that in 1790, George Washington wrote to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, that this country will give ‘to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance’.”

Beyond that, if the statements from the Vatican and other Catholic authorities, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, various Protestant bodies and leaders, and ecumenical and interfaith groups bears any relationship to attitudes likely to be found among their constituencies, it seems likely that an awful lot of people find it just plain disrespectful, wrongly provocative and offensive.

Certainly the group of counter-protesters in Amarillo seems to have included a lot of people who felt it was wrong on the merits, not just because it might lead to violence. The very celebration of Isom’s act suggests that a lot of people consider Grisham’s act beyond the pale of decency.

“Steve, do you extend this line of thinking to the Danish cartoons, too? And what would you make of the Canadian human-rights tribunals that investigated a local newsmagazine for printing the cartoons? Was it ‘indecent’ to print the cartoons?”

I would say no, and no. Representing Muhammad, even in caricature or cartoon, is nowhere near the provocation that burning a Quran is, on multiple levels. First, no Muslim, even those who take the hardest line on representations of the prophets (and you know that not all Muslims have a problem with this in principle), would equate the two.

Also, not all concessions to the sensitivities of others are equally reasonable. While words and pictures can be indecent or unnecessarily provocative, any construal of legitimate free speech necessarily entails words and pictures that some object to. We cannot eliminate all offense to all expression without eliminating free speech entirely.

Note that people (e.g., editorial cartoonists) have reasons to draw Muhammad that have nothing to do with offending Muslims. Publicly burning a Quran, by contrast, is something that no one would ever do unless it were offensive. The act exists precisely as a deliberate provocation against someone’s most deeply felt sensibilities. If Muslims had no problem with burning Qurans—if Muslim theory held that the Quran was sacred only in proclamation (which is what the word means, so it’s not that implausible), so that burning or mutilating the physical paper and ink of a Quran was no affront to Allah whatsoever—nobody would burn them.

Once again, it’s possible to use words and pictures to deliberately provoke in this way, as per “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” However, not only is this once again a far lesser provocation, it’s also an act aimed precisely at affirming freedom of expression in drawing over against unreasonable Muslim protests and even violence over this very act. Those who burn Qurans are not likewise protesting Muslim opposition to burning Qurans. It’s just a stick in the eye to Muslim sensibilities with the biggest available stick.

On top of that, even drawings intended precisely to offend may have additional self-expressive value on top of that offense. If they don’t, they’re likely hardly offensive at all (e.g., a stick figure labeled “Muhammad”). Burning a book doesn’t say anything except “In your face Muslims! Does it hurt when I do this? Why then, that’s exactly what I’m going to do.”

Posted by Peter T Chattaway on Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010 11:46 PM (EDT):

Steve, do you extend this line of thinking to the Danish cartoons, too? And what would you make of the Canadian human-rights tribunals that investigated a local newsmagazine for printing the cartoons? Was it “indecent” to print the cartoons? They *were*, after all, what the story was about.

And if we’re going to invoke “community standards”, then that just begs the question of which community is setting the standard. This is not an irrelevant question, given that the *primary* reason for opposing the Koran-burning in many people’s eyes seems to be the likely reaction of the Muslim world abroad, including the sort of violence that we saw after the Danish cartoons were printed.

On one level, yes, it would be prudent not to provoke the Muslim world unnecessarily. On another level, though, it is important that we not compromise our own standards of free expression etc., and that we not give in to blackmail.

When lines are drawn in the sand like this, it is possible to say, “A pox on both your houses.” I don’t think we need to take sides.

Posted by Raye on Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010 10:34 PM (EDT):

Personally, my opinion usually falls on the side of the party that makes me laugh the most.

Koran? $30.

Grill? $100.

Lighter? 20c.

Having your childish demonstration ruined because a kid on a skateboard nabs the book under your very nose and does a runner? Priceless.

Americans place a high premium on freedom of expression, definitely. But my sympathies for other people’s freedom of expression starts to shade off a bit in the area of what could be called indecency. People using their freedom of speech to trample on community standards of civil behavior get my dander up. And the categories of sacredness and sacrilege over one route to the border between decency and indecency. And while I’m reluctant to invoke the law to punish indecency, I’m disposed to be sympathetic to ad hoc social action, even if it doesn’t always stay on the safe side of the law. More later.

Posted by Peter T Chattaway on Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010 7:17 PM (EDT):

Disanalogies, definitely. Anyone can buy a Bible or a Koran, and everyone has the legal right to burn a book in their possession—whereas the only way to have consecrated bread or wine, outside of a religious ceremony, is to steal it from a church. So, yeah, I wouldn’t complain if someone stole the bread and wine back from such thieves.

In any case, my primary point here is that I don’t feel inclined to applaud an atheist who says he’s defending everyone’s beliefs when he was very clearly interfering with someone else’s expression of his beliefs. Freedom of expression, and freedom of dissent, include the right to burn whatever you like as a sign of protest—whether it’s a Bible, or a Koran, or a record album, or a flag, or a bra, or whatever. And I am definitely not persuaded that there is anything moral about interfering with such freedoms, especially in such an arbitrary manner.

We may sympathize with the man who stole the other man’s Koran, but I don’t think we should be “cheering” him, any more than we should “cheer” someone for killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield. At best, we should mourn that such evils have become necessary, or seemingly necessary.

“If I’m getting this right, Steven, it’s a bit like snatching a gun from the hand of an obviously agitated man? Since his will is patently compromised and the incredible danger to social order and the public good?”

Well, partly, sort of. The paradigmatic case of legitimately taking something against the unreasonable will of the owner is a starving man stealing food that he can’t get any other way, even if he knows the owner wouldn’t give it to him to save his life. Because it is unreasonable for a man who can afford the loss to refuse food to a starving man, the starving man may licitly take the food not only without permission but even against the owner’s (unreasonable) express wishes.

So we don’t need to assume agitation or compromised moral agency in any sense beyond the sense bound up in moral defect. Also, obviously, would-be Quran burner is not a clear and present danger in the way that a would-be shooter is. But both are acting in an unreasonable and antisocial way, and it can be argued (certainly in the case of the gun, and at least arguably in the case of the Quran) that neither is in a position to reasonably refuse surrendering the gun or the Quran as the only alternative to the unreasonable act that will otherwise follow.

The putative sacredness of the Quran is another factor, one that I’ll try to account for soon.

Posted by DTMc on Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010 6:41 PM (EDT):

“Theft is defined morally as seizing another’s property contrary to the reasonable will of the owner. If an act such as Quran burning is antisocial and harmful to the social order, then preventing this act for the sake of the public good may not contrary to the owner’s reasonable will, and may thus be morally licit even if legally actionable, like the priest’s slap.)”

If I’m getting this right, Steven, it’s a bit like snatching a gun from the hand of an obviously agitated man? Since his will is patently compromised and the incredible danger to social order and the public good?

Peter, first, desecrating a Bible isn’t really parallel for Christians to desecrating a Quran for Muslims. As I noted in another combox, for Muslims desecrating the Quran is the greatest possible sacrilege, to that extent the closest one could get (though it’s not the same, even subjectively) to desecrating the Blessed Sacrament for Catholic or Orthodox Christians. The Quran is holier to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians, in part because for Christians the Bible points to Jesus, the definitive revelation of God, while the Quran for Muslims IS the definitive revelation of God. (It’s more complicated than that, but that’s a start.)

“Defending Muslims” was my characterization, not Isom’s. It’s a symbolic “defense,” just as Quran burning is a symbolic attack. Suppose you lived in a Muslim-majority country, and Muslims were trying to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament, and another Muslim stopped them. I know, I know, disanalogies all down the line there. Still, I perhaps you wouldn’t mind if someone spoke of that interfering Muslim as “defending Christians.”

Posted by victor on Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010 5:42 PM (EDT):

I’m not sure I understand the moral of this story unless it’s to always carry a backup Quran?

Posted by Peter T Chattaway on Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010 4:29 PM (EDT):

If Isom really believes in “freedom for everyone”, then why would he prevent Grisham from freely exercising his right to burn a copy of the Koran, especially a copy that may have been Grisham’s own property? Was not Isom “messing with [Grisham’s] beliefs” by preventing him from expressing those beliefs in his own way?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m opposed to the Koran-burning for all sorts of reasons. But I would be offended if anyone stole a Bible that was about to be burned and claimed afterwards that they had “defended Christians”. My faith is not so weak that it can’t survive a non-Christian’s non-violent act of protest. Why should we insinuate that Muslims are so much weaker in this regard than we are?

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Steven D. Greydanus

Steven D. Greydanus is film critic for the National Catholic Register and Decent Films, the online home for his film writing. He writes regularly for Christianity Today, Catholic World Report and other venues, and is a regular guest on several radio shows. Steven has contributed several entries to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, including “The Church and Film” and a number of filmmaker biographies. He has also written about film for the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy. He has a BFA in Media Arts from the School of Visual Arts in New York, and an MA in Religious Studies from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, PA. He is pursuing diaconal studies in the Archdiocese of Newark. Steven and Suzanne have seven children.